1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 35,00,000 and 20% per annum from April 10, 2005 to the date of full payment.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants on the claim for the return, etc. of construction price set forth in this Court Order 2004Da70783, May 10, 2005, and the above court rendered a ruling of the same order as stated in Paragraph (1) of this case. The fact that the judgment became final and conclusive around that time can be recognized by either the Plaintiff and the Defendants either without any dispute, or considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement of No. 1.

As to this, the defendants asserted that the plaintiff's claim for the above final judgment against the defendants is unjustifiable.

Therefore, even in cases where a new suit based on the subject matter of a lawsuit, such as a judgment that has become final and conclusive exceptionally due to special circumstances, such as cases where a new suit is allowed, the judgment of the new suit does not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. Thus, the court in the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether the requirements for claiming the established right have been satisfied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da1645, Jun. 12, 1998). Therefore, in order for the Defendant to dispute the final and conclusive legal relationship in the subsequent suit, the res judicata effect should be extinguished by filing an appeal for lawful completion of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. This does not change because the copy and original copy of the previous suit were served by service by public notice, and thus the Defendant could not respond to the previous suit due to any cause not attributable to the Defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da111340, Apr. 11, 2013). However, the Defendants did not file an appeal for subsequent completion of the said final judgment by the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion in the said judgment cannot be accepted.

Thus, the plaintiff's defendants.